BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Miller, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 533 (08 April 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/533.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 533

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 533
Case No 2025/00705/A4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT GLOUCESTER
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANDREW SHAW) [36CJ1461824 ]

Royal Courts of Justice London
The Strand
WC2A 2LL
8 April 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE
MR JUSTICE WALL
THE RECORDER OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA
(His Honour Judge Edmunds KC)
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

____________________

REX
- v -
GEORGIA MILLER

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Mr M McNiff appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Mr D Connolly appeared on behalf of the Crown

____________________

A P P R O V E D HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE:

  1. On 2 June 2023, in the Crown Court at Norwich, at a plea and trial preparation hearing, the applicant pleaded guilty to fraudulent evasion of duty, contrary to section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
  2. On 20 February 2025, in the same Crown Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence on a second indictment of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.
  3. On 21 February 2025, in the Crown Court at Kings Lynn, the applicant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Andrew Shaw to a total period of 35 months' imprisonment, comprising 27 months for the fraudulent evasion of duty and a consecutive term of eight months for perverting the course of justice.
  4. The Registrar has referred the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence to the full court.
  5. The applicant and her nine co-defendants were involved in the large-scale importation of tobacco into the UK from Spain between March 2017 and March 2018. It was estimated that over three tonnes of tobacco had been brought into the UK through airports, evading about £650,000 in excise duty. The organisers of the group were the applicant and the co-defendant Calvin Newson, who was her partner and the father of her children. They were supported by a team of couriers who made regular trips in and out of the UK, often within 48 hours. The applicant travelled between the UK and Malaga on 15 occasions between March 2017 and November 2017. She returned to the UK with 39 items of checked luggage, which in itself caused a loss to the Revenue of about £120,000.
  6. By way of example, on 12 September 2017, the applicant, Grange-Cooke, Kendle and Montgomery arrived at Stansted Airport on a flight from Malaga. They loaded twelve bags of luggage into a black Range Rover, which was driven away by the applicant. Later that afternoon, the applicant drove Kendle to Luton Airport, where he boarded a flight to Malaga. He returned the following day with two further suitcases. On 16 September 2017, a covert bag search was undertaken of the luggage of Newson, Montgomery and Grange-Cooke when they arrived back at Stansted on a flight from Malaga. All of their luggage was found to contain bin liners containing large quantities of tobacco. Each of them collected their luggage from the arrival hall. The applicant then collected them from the airport. Both she and Newson then returned to their home address near Kings Lynn with the suitcases.
  7. On 26 September 2017 the applicant and Newson arrived at Stansted on a flight from Malaga. They got into a taxi with six items of luggage. Later that afternoon, Montgomery and Grange-Cooke also arrived at Stansted on a flight from Malaga. They also got into a taxi with six items of luggage. Later, all four were together when the luggage was loaded into a white van which was then driven off by the applicant.
  8. Similar journeys involving the applicant and co-defendants continued to be made. Customs officers made covert searches of luggage and found large quantities of tobacco.
  9. The applicant was responsible for paying for and booking flights and for paying for the tobacco and luggage in Spain, although the funds were generally provided to her by Newson and sometimes by another. When she was not making trips herself to Malaga, the applicant was involved in collecting couriers at the airport in this country and transporting the tobacco. There is also evidence of at least one occasion when she assisted a courier who got into difficulty.
  10. The applicant was arrested on 27 March 2018 and made no comment in response to questions in interview.
  11. The police analysed the mobile phones of the applicant and the co-defendants. In messages between the applicant and Fisher, the applicant had been co-ordinating flights and transport to airports across multiple dates. When discussing a seizure on 29 January 2018, Fisher offered to do further runs.
  12. We turn to the circumstances of the second offence. On 17 September 2023, a Volkswagen vehicle was caught speeding by a speed camera on the A14 in Suffolk, travelling at 80 miles an hour on a road with a 70 per hour limit. On 27 September 2023, a notice of intended prosecution was sent to the vehicle's registered keeper, the co-defendant Stephen Kendle. The notice instructed him to provide details of the driver at the time of the offence. On 21 October, a response was submitted, which said that the co-defendant Barry Pegg had been the driver. On 23 October, a notice of intended prosecution was sent to Pegg, who returned the form stating that he had indeed been the driver. On 4 March 2024, he pleaded guilty to the offence of speeding and received a fine of £40 and three penalty points.
  13. On 15 April 2024, whilst reviewing a phone download in relation to the tobacco smuggling investigation, messages between Kendle and the applicant were found that related to the speeding offence. On 28 September 2023, Kendle messaged the applicant with a screenshot of the notice of intended prosecution, followed by the word, "Unlucky". The applicant replied saying, "FFS, I knew they'd clocked me. I'll have to pay someone to say it was them. I can't say it was me, I will get points. I've already done speed awareness". Kendle replied, "OK, you've got a few weeks to decide who". The applicant replied, "You need the money?" This message was not replied to. At 9.15 pm the same day, Kendle sent the applicant the evidential photographs that had been provided and said, "At least you can't see who's driving". At 5.01 am on 29 September, the applicant replied saying, "Gumbo's dad is going to take it". On 19 October, the applicant messaged Kendle and said, "I've got details for that speeding thing. Shall I go online and fill it out?", along with a screenshot of the nominated response.
  14. A PNC check on the vehicle dating back to 17 September 2023 showed that insurance had been taken out on 13 September 2023 for one week in the applicant's name. She was arrested and provided no comment in interview. She was aged 25 at the time of this offence.
  15. The applicant was born on 2 February 1998. She was therefore aged between 19 and 20 when the smuggling took place. She had no previous convictions.
  16. The author of the pre-sentence report assessed the applicant as posing a low risk of reconviction and a low risk of serious recidivism. Any re-offending that might occur would pose a medium risk to the public, but there was the potential for that risk to decrease.
  17. The applicant had said that when the smuggling began she had just completed her A levels and started training to be an accountant. She had met Newson in November 2016, when she was 18, and had moved in with him in February 2017. She became very much in love with him. Although Newson had introduced her to the smuggling, she took full responsibility for her actions and appeared to express genuine remorse. The author considered that the applicant's lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the offending reflected her lack of maturity at the time.
  18. The relationship with Newson ended in 2024, when he faced trial for a drugs conspiracy which took place between November 2022 and May 2023. He received a prison sentence of 13 years in September 2024.
  19. The applicant was the sole carer for her two children, aged 18 months and 3 years. She worked 24 to 32 hours a week as a hairdresser, depending on the childcare available. Members of her family would assist with childcare, but they had jobs and children of their own. The applicant had contacted Social Services before sentence to make them aware of the risk of her receiving a custodial sentence and the arrangements she had made for the care of her children. Their godmother would move in to look after them. The applicant's parents and siblings would also need to assist.
  20. In his sentencing remarks, the judge said that the applicant had played a leading role in the smuggling operation, although below Newson's overarching role. The offending required significant planning and took place over a sustained period of time. The harm assessed by the loss to the Revenue of £640,000 fell into category 4.
  21. The judge made a careful assessment of the delay in this matter. All but one of the co-accused were arrested on 27 March 2018. They all declined to comment when interviewed. The fact that the smuggling of the tobacco was not admitted necessitated a long and complex investigation, including the analysis of 38 laptop computers and phones, and in due course lengthy disclosure. Letters of request had to be sent by the authorities to Spain and Gibraltar. Financial transactions had to be investigated. The pandemic intervened in 2020 to 2021. Charging decisions were eventually made in October 2022, and the cases were sent to the Crown Court in April 2023.
  22. All of the accused bar one pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing. None of those applied to be sentenced in advance of the outstanding trial. However, when that trial date had to be broken Judge Shaw decided that sentencing for the others should proceed. Unfortunately, it then had to be adjourned from October 2024 to February 2025. The judge pointed out that, while some of the accused had used the period of delay to turn their lives around, the applicant had committed a further serious offence. He said that while no one was to be punished for not admitting guilt earlier, the investigation could have ended much sooner had the defendants been candid about what they had done. He decided that a small reduction of ten per cent in the length of the prison terms would be appropriate. Mr McNiff, on behalf of the applicant, does not challenge that assessment.
  23. Turning to deal with the applicant and her age at the time of the smuggling, the judge referred to the oft-cited passage in R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185; [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 52, at [5]. He proceeded on the basis that she was not immature relative to her chronological age. On the contrary, she was engaged in a long-term relationship with a much older man and had directed other older men as part of the criminal enterprise.
  24. It was the fact that the applicant is the mother of two young children, aged 18 months and 3 years whose father was serving a long prison sentence, which weighed more heavily with the judge. The article 8 rights of both mother and infants were engaged. The judge referred to R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214; [2013] 1 WLR 1102, and in particular to the general propositions 5 to 8 stated by Hughes LJ (as he then was). He said that it was to the applicant's credit that she had alerted Social Services to the situation.
  25. The judge then returned to the applicant's role in the offences. He rejected the defence submission that the applicant had simply given like-minded friends the opportunity to earn some extra money. He found that both she and Newson must have known how much money they were making from the enterprise. They were becoming richer, whilst those who were recruited were paid modest sums.
  26. The judge said that it would have been easier to accept Mr McNiff's submissions on the applicant's role, but for three matters: first, that during Newson's drugs trial, the body camera footage showed the applicant obstructing the entry of the police into their home while Newson was busy inside re-setting phones to their factory settings; second, that during the trial he had observed the applicant seeking to influence the jury from the public gallery and had raised this matter with counsel in that case; and third, there was the subsequent offence of perverting the course of justice. In his judgment, that offending arose because for some time the applicant had regarded herself as untouchable and above the law. In that instance she had manipulated a vulnerable and seriously disabled man into taking points for her. Accordingly, the judge said that he was unable to accept that the applicant had acted as Newson's secretary or "dogsbody". She had bought into his criminal lifestyle from the beginning and with her eyes wide open. The commission of the second offence while on bail for the first underlined her arrogance in relation to the laws that bind society.
  27. In the case of Calvin Newson, the judge took a post-trial starting point of five years' imprisonment for the evasion of duty to reflect the harm of £650,000, rather than five years six months for a notional harm of £1 million. He said that there were no aggravating or mitigating factors. He then reduced that figure by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, and by a further ten per cent for the delay, to arrive at 40 months, before making an adjustment for totality, to take into account the sentence previously imposed for the separate drug offences.
  28. In the applicant's case, the judge began with a sentence of four years six months' imprisonment to reflect the fact that she occupied a lower position in the hierarchy. He then reduced that term to 40 months for her age at the time of the offence, her previous good character, and the effect on the children. This was further reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, and a further ten per cent for delay, to arrive at 27 months' imprisonment. He then imposed a consecutive sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the offence of perverting the course of justice.
  29. We have read a prison report, dated 20 March 2025, which states that the applicant's conduct in prison has been positive. She has helped staff and in one instance helped another inmate. She has taken full responsibility for having committed the offences and appears to be keen to complete offence-related work to address risk factors and to make positive changes.
  30. In response to a request from the Registrar, the Probation Service were only able to repeat the information already contained in the pre-sentence report.
  31. The Registrar then directed defence counsel to provide any up-to-date information the court should have. Two responses have been received, one dated 25 March 2025 and the other dated 26 March 2025. They inform the court that the care for the children remains ad hoc and patchwork. It involves the two grandmothers, Hannah Kendle (the applicant's friend) and the applicant's brother. It has been necessary for those assisting to have to take time off work, even days, to help. It is a struggle for the paternal grandmother, because she is her own mother's carer. The brother works full time and for long hours. Hannah Kendle is not always available and cannot commit to making further promises. It is not clear how long matters can continue. The children themselves are struggling, particularly the older boy. The court has been told about how they refer to the accommodation in which their parents are imprisoned. The applicant has stopped calling them to say "Goodnight" because it is too upsetting for the older boy.
  32. The second update says that the staff on the wing have referred the applicant to the medical unit. She was seen and assessed by a nurse who has referred her for therapy, to which she has agreed. It is not clear when this will take place. By her own admission, she is struggling in prison. Her only focus is her children. She has not spoken to them by phone for a week because it has been too upsetting, as much for the children as for her. She has had two visits with them. On the second occasion, the older child had to be prised away from her, and it took her a while, understandably, to calm down. She says that it is too distressing for him in particular and for the adult who then has to deal with the fallout. The situation has been taken very badly.
  33. The court has not received any information about the attitude of Social Services to the arrangements which have been made, whether in particular they have any, and if so what, concerns. We are told that Social Services continue to be apprised of the circumstances. We consider that if they had concerns about current arrangements, they would have intervened. Having said that, we accept that the primary consideration is the harm caused by imprisonment of the mother on the two young children and on her. The serious effects are self-evident.
  34. We are grateful to Mr McNiff for his written and oral submissions. In summary, he says that the judge mischaracterised the role and culpability of the applicant as "leading"; it should have been "significant". He says that the judge relied upon a number of factors, firstly, which were not part of the prosecution's case against the applicant; secondly, which were not supported by evidence; and thirdly, which were not raised by the court so that the applicant and counsel could deal with them before sentence was passed. In any event, they are not accepted and were not relevant to sentence.
  35. Mr McNiff goes on to submit that the judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant's youth at the time of the smuggling offence, and that the court had insufficient regard to the interference with family life, and in particular the severe impact upon children of such a tender age. As a result, he submits that the interference with family life of a total sentence of 35 months' imprisonment is disproportionate and should properly be reviewed by this court.
  36. We have also considered the Respondent's Notice served by the prosecution, which is measured and well-judged. We are also grateful to Mr Connolly for his oral submissions.
  37. Discussion

  38. We recognise that the judge carried out a very detailed and careful sentencing exercise in which he had to balance a number of considerations. We also appreciate that the task he faced was difficult in relation to the applicant because the lead offence had been committed so long ago, when she was relatively young and before her children were born, and also because of the serious effect of the sentence on those infants and family life.
  39. For our part, we have no doubt that the judge was correct to assess the applicant as having had a "leading role". But, as the prosecution has accepted, there are different levels within that category.
  40. The sentencing range for category 4A is four years to six years six months' imprisonment for harm ranging between £0.5 million and £2 million. The starting point given by the guideline is five years six months' imprisonment, based on harm of £1 million. But that category range has to accommodate not only differences in level of harm, but also differences in function and culpability. For example, in this case the offending occurred over a sustained period and it involved significant planning. Those factors, combined with Calvin Newson's overarching role, must explain why, in his case, the judge reduced that starting point by only six months to five years' imprisonment, albeit that the monetary harm involved was closer to the bottom of the range for category 4A, that is to say closer to £0.5 million than to £1 million.
  41. However, when he came to the applicant, the further reduction that the judge made for the difference in the applicant's role was only six months. With great respect, that did not, in our judgment, reflect the true differences in their respective positions and was wrong in principle. As the judge said, Newson had the overarching role and he, along with a relation, but mainly he, provided the finance for the operation. He recruited the team and he persuaded Montgomery to give up his employment to work for him, saying that he would earn £2,000 a month. None of those features applied to the applicant. The Crown has expressly accepted that there is no evidence that the applicant was involved in recruitment; whereas, in his sentencing remarks, the judge said that she was.
  42. Furthermore, the judge stated that he would have taken a different view about the submissions made by Mr McNiff in relation to the applicant's role, but for three things which had happened in 2023 to 2024: the applicant's behaviour when the police tried to enter their home and during the drugs trial, and her perverting the course of justice in relation to her speeding offence.
  43. The prosecution agreed that the first two matters were not raised with the defence during the sentencing hearing. That is a matter of concern. But we do not see how, in any event, any of those three matters could have shone any light on the applicant's culpability, or her role relative to Newson in the evasion of duty offence between 2017 and 2018, when she was 19 to 20 years old. This is a further reason why the reduction from five years to four years six months' imprisonment in her case, before allowing for aggravating and mitigating circumstances, was inadequate.
  44. Mr McNiff submits that, by analogy with the cases of Montgomery and Grange-Cooke, the adjusted starting point in the applicant's case ought to have been three years. With respect, we disagree. They were involved simply as couriers, and their circumstances were fully explained in the judge's sentencing remarks.
  45. In our judgment, the adjusted starting point before allowing for aggravating or mitigating circumstances should have been four years' imprisonment.
  46. The judge did not identify any aggravating circumstances in the case of either Newson or the applicant. As for mitigation, there was the applicant's previous good character, her youth at the time of the offence, the delay, the fact that she has become a mother, and the effect of imprisonment upon both the children and herself. We consider that these maters required a combined reduction of about 40 per cent, before allowing for any credit for the guilty plea. After credit for the plea, namely 25 per cent, this becomes a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. With the addition of the consecutive term of eight months' imprisonment for the offence of perverting the course of justice, the overall sentence becomes one of 29 months' imprisonment.
  47. Accordingly, we grant leave and allow the appeal to this extent. We quash the sentences which were imposed on the first indictment of 27 months and substitute a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. The consecutive sentence of eight months' imprisonment on the second indictment for perverting the course of justice remains unchanged. The overall consequence of our decision is that the total period of imprisonment is reduced to 29 months.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010